Thank God Theres A Ron Paul

[Snorri1234]

Jay, there is simply no way in hell you can call Bush an economic liberal. No way in Hell. Do you think raising spending makes you a liberal? The definition of an economic liberal is honoring social instutions. The Bush administration has raised spending (although magically, they haven't raised federal taxes to compensate) on Big Pharma, the military, and the like. These are NOT social instutions. Social institutions are the arts, Pell Grants, unemployment benefits, Medicare (actual medicare, too, not the sop to the pharmaceuticals it is right now) SOCIAL SECURITY, for God's sake. How can you consider somebody an economic liberal if they openly campaigned for the canning of Social Security?

Fiscal.....$$$$$$$.....He spends $ and hasn't cut $ from social programs. Sounds pretty liberal to me. CUT THE FAT! We need someone to come in and cut out the needless social spending on these programs to enable the lazy! Like Ron said, "We are going bankrupt" and I believe it.

That's because of the bureaucracy. Governments have a habit of just shoving money into a problem untill it goes away, instead of seeking a way to spend their money more efficiently.

[DangerBoy]

Conservative: Smaller Government. Less spending. Secure boarders. non-intervening (anti-world police). Self responsibility.
Self governing. Feds stay out of what the States can handle. Protector of Life. To name a few.

Jay, although I generally agree with your political views I think you should know some basic definitions of terms.

Conservative - wants the govt. to not be involved in economic affairs. They do however, want the govt. to be involved when it comes to preserving/conserving the traditional social values of a country.

Liberal - wants the govt. to be involved in economic affairs. They do not want the govt. to be involved when it comes to preserving/conserving the traditional social values of a country.

Libertarian - doesn't want the govt. to be thoroughly involved in either the preservation of traditional social values or economic policies.

Those are very general and I'm sure others can add to them or edit them. It just depends on what it is you want to conserve in order to call yourself a conservative. Since we were founded on a combination of Greek, Judeo-Christian, and Enlightenment principles I think that's what you are wanting to conserve.

[xtratabasco]

xtra a question for you?

lets just say in a hypothetical world, we are no longer at war and for whatever reason there are supreme court ruilings which limit the power of certain government agencies aruging they are against the spirit of the consitution

are you still voting for ron paul because you agree with his ideology, or are you voting for him under some ends justify the means premise?

We are deceived by the media and the politicians into believing that we have two major political parties. The Republicans (conservatives) and Democrats (liberal). But these labels mean nothing. As we have witnessed time and time again, both parties are 100 percent globalist, 100 percent anti-American sovereignty, and 100 percent anti-U.S. Constitution.

We need a change, Ron Paul is our last hope to get back what our forfathers died for.

Im not sure im right about this, but my head and gut tells me both parties have sold us down the river. Im tired of believing in the present system anymore.

[Nobunaga]

Conservative:


Smaller Government

Less spending

Secure boarders

non-intervening (anti-world police)

Self responsibility

Self governing

Feds stay out of what the States can handle

Protector of Life

To name a few.

... sounds to me like a Libertarian.

...

[spurgistan]

Which is what conservatives used to be. Libertarian.

[vtmarik]

Which is what conservatives used to be. Libertarian.

Aren't modern conservatives more akin to the old Whig party?

[Elwar]

You Amerooooooooooooooocans really just need to cut down the scope of the executive power and relax.

ALL your candidates suck. Ron Paul being the best is hardly a glorious statement. His wacko Libertarian isolationist policies just aren't anymore viable than your socialist democrat candidates money-hand-over-fist-screw-the-economy views or your other republican gotta-sate-the-base plans.

[xtratabasco]

You Amerooooooooooooooocans really just need to cut down the scope of the executive power and relax.

ALL your candidates suck. Ron Paul being the best is hardly a glorious statement. His wacko Libertarian isolationist policies just aren't anymore viable than your socialist democrat candidates money-hand-over-fist-screw-the-economy views or your other republican gotta-sate-the-base plans.

I live around OLD rich Europeans who own 2nd and 3 homes and they say the same thing.

you know why?

because they are pussys and remember the day Hitler and the European Royalty (they backed Hitler as well as some rich americans) supported Hitler and watched their country fall into the shithole, and they hate ANYONE that supports isolationism esp Pat Buchannon.


I say f*ck YOU we dont owe you anything and ALL of our past leaders have bent over backwards for you, including this war-monger Bush.



The welfare days for you and your group are over.




at least I hope. vote Ron Paul

[Elwar]

Err, what? You don't owe 'us' (I'm Australian dude) anything? No shit sherlock.

I'm not even sure what your rant was really about. But anyway, I think history has told us that any and all Amerocan foreign intervention has not been an act of kindness (but but the Marshall Plan!), and common sense tells us that isolationism today isn't feasible politically or economically.

But then again, it could be a egoboost for a nation slowly losing stature and significance (at a contradictorily fast pace).

[Titanic]

Err, what? You don't owe 'us' (I'm Australian dude) anything? No shit sherlock.

I'm not even sure what your rant was really about. But anyway, I think history has told us that any and all Amerocan foreign intervention has not been an act of kindness (but but the Marshall Plan!), and common sense tells us that isolationism today isn't feasible politically or economically.

But then again, it could be a egoboost for a nation slowly losing stature and significance (at a contradictorily fast pace).

So true. Isolationism for the strongest economic and military power int he world is not really an option. You are involved in many places whether you want it or not, and becoming isolationist could create more damage then good.

I've also got to agree that American foreign intervention is hardly ever an act of kindness, more along the lines of increasing their ego and bullying people. Somalia is the only one in recent times (if it can be called that) that stands out.

[Guiscard]

I've also got to agree that American foreign intervention is hardly ever an act of kindness, more along the lines of increasing their ego and bullying people. Somalia is the only one in recent times (if it can be called that) that stands out.

Somalia IS the only one, I'm afraid. And that failed utterly because American popular opinion couldn't quite get its head around intervention for purely humanitarian reasons once the boys started dying.

[Tyr]

thats because american lives are worth more then foreigners lives